David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that it was necessary to ask for further information. That information was received and it is right and proper that English Heritage undertake appropriate site visits so that it can make correct recommendations to the Secretary of State. On receipt of that, my right hon. Friend will be able to come to a view about the listing arrangements.

Patricia Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, albeit rather grudging support, for many of our proposals in the White Paper. He mentioned several issues, including palliative care, which we specifically deal with. That is enormously important. As a result of the increased funding over the next few years, including the money that we will shift from reduced administrative costs at a local level into front-line services, more money will go into local networks for palliative care, including better provision at home and in hospices for children who are terminally ill.
	The hon. Gentleman referred extensively to GPs, particularly in relation to the target for appointments. I remind him that, when we were first elected, patients were rightly complaining that they often had to wait days, and sometimes weeks, to get an appointment to see their GP. We introduced the target of 48 hours maximum to see a GP and 24 hours to see a nurse practitioner. That has improved the situation for very many patients. The hon. Gentleman still has not told us whether he would scrap that target, along with the other targets that have helped to achieve enormous improvements in NHS services. There are still problems, as I am the first to acknowledge. People sometimes find it difficult to get through to the GP service or to book an advance appointment. That is why we have already negotiated with the British Medical Association, as part of the new GP contract, the agreement that part of GPs' pay in future years will be linked to an independent survey of patient satisfaction. That is part of putting patients in the driving seat. If they are not happy with the appointments system and their ability to get appointments when they need them, that will be reflected accordingly in their GP's pay.
	The hon. Gentleman talked extensively about a return to GP fundholding. We are not going to return to fundholding, because it was unfair, created a two-tier system and ended up with hospitals trying to compete on price and undercutting each other to try to persuade GPs to enter into contracts with them, resulting in the most enormous administrative costs and unnecessary bureaucracy. We will do none of that. However, through practice-based commissioning, which will extend to every part of the country and every GP practice by the end of the year, we will give GPs and primary care practices much greater freedom and responsibility for the money that is spent on behalf of their patients in acute hospitals, including, of course, emergency admissions.
	The result is an enormous incentive to GPs and primary care practices to deliver much better care closer to home, reduce emergency admissions to hospitals, keep their patients healthier and save money, which will then be available to the practice to reinvest in better services.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the open contest for services in areas where they are inadequate. I said that, in six disadvantaged areas and many more to come, we are already holding open tenders through primary care trusts for the new primary care services. Applicants may be an existing GP practice that wants to expand, a nurse practitioner who wants to leave the service, a private firm, a not-for-profit organisation or a social enterprise, but the criteria—indeed, the whole process—will be open and transparent. Getting the best services for patients, with the best value for public money, will be the only thing that matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to primary care trusts. Local consultations are currently taking place in many parts of the country where primary care trusts propose to merge and change their boundaries. There is no doubt that, as we get more primary care trusts that are coterminous with a local social services authority, it will make joint working, which people rightly want, between social services and the local NHS much easier to achieve. It will mean stronger commissioning, especially of acute services, from primary care trusts, linked to much more choice for individual patients about health and social care, and a much stronger voice for them. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the chapter in the White Paper that covers the way in which we will strengthen the say of patients and users, including through independent surveys and a much stronger role for overview and scrutiny committees.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding. There has been overspending, sometimes for some years, by a minority of organisations, and a small number consequently have serious financial problems. Of course, we must get those under control. Last week, I set out the way in which we shall support those organisations even further to deal with their problems.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it makes no sense to force patients to go to an acute hospital for an out-patient appointment, diagnostics or minor procedures if they can be done with good clinical quality safely, effectively and more conveniently for the patient in the local community. That is why the Royal College of Physicians and especially the Royal College of General Practitioners have worked with us closely to identify initially six specialties in which we will redesign the patient pathways to deliver more clinical care in the community. We set that out in some detail.
	The hon. Gentleman twice mentioned the extension of direct payments, not only to social care but to health. That sounds like the revival of the patient's passport. It appeared in the Conservative manifesto only nine months ago and was recently dropped, but I fear that it will re-emerge.
	The Conservative party voted against increased funding for the NHS. We have heard nothing from the Opposition spokesman about the crucial issue of health inequalities and ensuring fair funding for patients throughout the country. I fear that the hon. Gentleman's responses suggest that his leader's recent changes amount to all words and no substance. The Conservative party has not moved on one bit.

James Gray: Will the Secretary of State give some attention to a case in point, my constituency, where community hospitals, particularly Malmesbury, as well as those that serve the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison)—Bradford-on-Avon, Warminster, Westbury, Melksham and Trowbridge— are under threat? Listening to the Secretary of State's statement, I believe that she is beginning to say that we ought to think again about closing those community hospitals. Since we are one of the 18 primary care trusts into which she has sent the heavy mob, will she tell us how the heavy mob will save money, if we are to believe her that community hospitals will be saved?

Paul Murphy: Six days ago, I was stopped mid-sentence when referring to Splott market, and hon. Members may or may not recall that the purpose of my mentioning the market in Splott or any other marketplace in Wales was to try to bring to the House's attention the fact that constitutional matters, such as those that we are discussing, may be of enormous interest to us, as politicians, and perhaps to academics, but the Bill and any legislation passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords refers to people's lives. Hon. Members will recall that, over the past one and a quarter hours, the House has been dealing with an extremely important matter regarding the health service. So I make no apology to the House for saying that the basis for every Bill that we consider must be an improvement in the services that our people receive in Wales. However, we must understand that the way in which the Assembly Members are held to account by the people of Wales through the ballot box is also of great interest to our constituents. The amendment refers to the need to have proper consultation in the months ahead on the nature of the electoral system—in particular, the so-called top-up system—under which the National Assembly for Wales is elected.
	If hon. Members look at clauses 8 and 9 or paragraph 57 of the explanatory notes, they will see a rather convoluted and complicated description of how the so-called top-up Members are elected. That is for us to consider, but I recall that when I left the polling station after voting during the first election to the Assembly, a little old lady came out with me, clutching what she thought was a manifesto or a election address from a political party. As it turned out, it was the second ballot paper for the top-up Members. She asked me what to do with it, and I suggested that she should go back into the polling station and vote according to her conscience. But she did not know what that paper represented, and there had been plenty of publicity about the nature of the second electoral system.
	The figures speak for themselves about how it is that our constituents do not understand what it is that they do when they go into the polling station to vote in the second ballot. For example, my constituency is in the South Wales East region, which has almost 500,000 electors. At the last election—this applies to all parties other than mine—the Liberal Democrat, Mr. Michael German, won. He gained 17,661 second votes out of 500,000—3.76 per cent. of the people in South Wales East. At the same time, he stood for my constituency—Torfaen—and received 2,746 votes. Of course, he did not win, but he did win in the ballot for the top-up seats. It is virtually impossible for people in our constituencies to understand how it is that they pile up their votes—for example, in South Wales East, for Labour—yet none of them count in determining the second group of people who are elected to the National Assembly for Wales. Therefore, we need to take a very serious look at that system. Proportionality seems to be the answer for the second ballot. Why do people who elect Assembly Members not have them elected on the basis of proportionality and according to the votes that they cast?

Peter Hain: I pay tribute to the measured way in which the Committee has approached the scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee will be aware that much of the Bill—indeed, 140 out of 165 clauses—is carried over, with only minor modifications, from the Government of Wales Act 1998, or implements changes on which all parties are agreed. We have properly focused our scrutiny on those clauses—just 25—that are new or controversial instead of reopening debates that were settled six years ago and procedures that have worked well since. I particularly pleased with the detailed consideration of parts 3 and 4, which form the core of the new provisions. I hope that we can make good progress on the initial clauses of part 1, which include the remaining key provisions of the Bill.
	The amendment ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) touches on two separate but related issues; the system of voting used to elect the Assembly and the number of Assembly Members.
	On the voting system, I understand and respect the position of my hon. and right hon. Friends; indeed, I share many of their concerns about the operation of the present system. In retrospect, all Labour Members would have preferred a different option. However, achieving the necessary consensus on a new electoral system would not be easy. For example, a return to first past the post, with a man and a woman elected from each constituency, would ensure equal representation, but it would also decimate representation for minor parties, including the Welsh Conservatives. That would be seen as deliberately partisan; politically desirable from our point of view, perhaps, but constitutionally very difficult, to say the least.
	I believe that the best way forward is to seek to fix the flaws in the current electoral system through a ban on dual candidacy. I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends strongly support that. I hope that they also support clause 36(6), which requires the establishment of a code of conduct to ease some of the tensions between constituency and list Members. I hope that the Assembly Committee that is considering Standing Orders will also consider allowances for the different categories of Member.
	With regard to the number of Assembly Members, I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about the Assembly's increased workload, but there is plenty of scope for it to reorganise; for example, by changing the way in which it considers secondary legislation and by sitting longer hours for more weeks of the year. The Presiding Officer has made that point publicly in agreeing with me.
	A fundamental difficulty with the amendment is that it would require unspecified further primary legislation to resolve the issues that my hon. and right hon. Friends have rightly highlighted. There is no guarantee that a Government sympathetic to their views would be in power at the time of such a review. Perhaps a different amendment would be appropriate to achieve my hon. Friends' proper objectives but I am not inciting them to table one on Report.
	In the light of my comments, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams: Not all of them.
	The Welsh Courts Act 1942 allowed the use of Welsh in the courts, while the Welsh Language Act 1967 provided for the equal validity of anything said in Welsh or English. It conferred a kind of honorary status on the Welsh language. I have already mentioned the 1993 Act.
	Our amendment would provide not for full equality, but for a reasonable and gradual move in that direction. It would allow for circumstances in which Welsh need not be used on the same basis as English, but that would involve exceptional cases in which it would not reasonably be possible to do so, in contrast to the provisions in the 1993 Act. We hold that that would be entirely reasonable, because we do not want the language to be used when it would be unreasonable to do so.
	I shall give the House a brief example, involving some work that I did before I was elected to the House. I was proof-reading a quality assurance manual in Welsh, although it was going to be superseded in four months. I was paid quite well for doing the work, but it was a complete waste of time. We would not want to see the Welsh language being used if it were unreasonable to do so. However, we believe that such cases would be exceptional.
	Given the exemplary development of the Assembly's simultaneous translation service, the quality of its translations, the large number of Assembly Members who speak Welsh or who have learnt it—very well indeed, to their credit—and the growing number of Assembly staff who speak Welsh, it would be entirely possible to introduce the provisions in our amendment. It would be quite proper for the National Assembly for Wales to treat equally the two languages that are widely used in Wales.
	A growing number of young people speak Welsh as the result of educational changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government and by this Government, and I pay proper tribute to those Governments for doing that. Changes in the demography of Wales mean that more young people than older people speak Welsh, and there is a growing use of the Welsh language by private businesses. The National Assembly could give a clear lead by treating the Welsh language more equally, if I can put it like that. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister argues that the present situation—which is characterised by the Welsh language being treated unequally—is acceptable, given the advantages of our amendments. They would provide for the principle being breached in exceptional circumstances.
	I note that amendment No. 16 is also supported by the Conservatives. It would add to the list of subjects that the Welsh Ministers may consider it appropriate to support:
	"the implementation of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993."
	Clause 61 contains a long list of subjects that Minister might care to support, starting with "archaeological remains in Wales" and ending with "the Welsh language". The Welsh language certainly should not be classed as archaeological remains; it is a living language spoken by a quarter of the population as a whole, and by a third of young people in Wales. Welsh is getting younger. The amendment would add
	"the implementation of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993"
	to that list, so that Ministers could do anything that they considered appropriate in respect of culture, including the implementation of the Act.
	As I said earlier, the principle behind the Welsh Language Act 1993 was to treat the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality, but there has been dissatisfaction with the way in which the Act has been operated. However, given that we have the Act, even in its present form, it would seem reasonable that Ministers should be able to act to support its implementation.
	This amendment should also be considered in the context of the First Minister's decision to bring the Welsh Language Board into the Welsh Assembly Government. It is entirely unclear to me and to a great many others how that will be done. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain.
	The 1993 Act set up the board, which carries out certain functions. It seems to me that, for the board to disappear, we might need another language Act. If it were set up by an Act, it should be taken into the Welsh Assembly Government by another Act. On that, the First Minister is equally unclear.
	There is then the question of the regulatory functions of the board. The First Minister talks about setting up an office of y dyfarnwr, which means the adjudicator or the referee. It is unclear to me on what legal basis that office would be set up, as there is no reference to such a person in the 1993 Act. What power will he or she have to ensure the proper implementation of that Act? Where are these ideas laid out? I have no idea; perhaps the Secretary of State has. Whatever the fate of the Welsh Language Board in 2007, given that uncertainty, we would argue that it is feasible for Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government to be able to support the implementation of the 1993 Act.
	Lastly, amendment No. 124 and new clause 10 are more contentious, or perhaps less. They would allow for the commencement of Welsh language provisions in respect of Assembly Acts that begin on 1 April 2007; that is, the Assembly could pass one of its measures in respect of the Welsh language immediately in 2007, without having gone through a referendum. That is a peculiar exception. It would apply only to the Welsh language and to no other field. There are several reasons for proposing it.
	I have already referred to the widespread dissatisfaction with the 1993 Act. By the way, that Act was introduced in the face of much opposition from no other person than the First Minister, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, who was a Member of Parliament at that time and, I think, shadow Secretary of State. He promised the House that the new Labour Government would introduce a proper Welsh language Act, but, eight years later, we are still waiting.
	In those circumstances, why should not the Assembly have the opportunity to use its power to introduce such a measure? The First Minister and, I think, the Culture Minister in Cardiff, as well as, possibly, the Government here, have already said that they will not expend a single moment of Government time on introducing a new Welsh language Act. If the Government will not do it, although they promised through Mr. Rhodri Morgan in 1992 to do so, why should the Assembly be prevented from doing so in 2007, without having to wait?
	I will not go much further into the reasons for a new Welsh language Act. As I said, there is a great deal of confusion and some mystery as to the probable fate of the Welsh Language Board. Interestingly, there is a coalition of thought across Wales, across a number of groups in Wales and across a number of political parties in Wales that we need to look again at the 1993 Act. We need to do so in the new circumstances that are being brought about by Mr. Rhodri Morgan.
	The 1993 Act was an answer of sorts in 1993, but we contend that it has run into the buffers and needs to be considered carefully. The Secretary of State, in other arguments, talks about the need for the National Assembly to bed in. He has said that we need some time for it to prove its worth. The 1993 Act has had ample time to do so. I do not want to discuss the merits or otherwise of that Act, and I pay tribute to Lord Roberts for his work on it, but the day has come to look at it again. Given its deficiencies and the pressures for reform, and given the Government's refusal to make time here, there is a strong case for the Assembly to have the power to pass a measure on this quintessentially Welsh issue.

Roger Williams: I, too, wish to speak about hunting with dogs. The points have been well made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), but hunting in Wales is not just about fox hunting as we know it; hunting with dogs involves flushing out foxes to guns, and it has been conclusively demonstrated that the element of the law that limits the number of dogs that may be used in that pursuit to two is quite inadequate and does not achieve the intended object. Given that different ways and means can be used to achieve things in Wales, it is appropriate that the matter be devolved.
	The amount of land in Wales owned by the Ministry of Defence has been brought to my attention. The MOD has responsibility for pest control in those areas. How will it carry out that duty if the letter of the law as currently expressed is adhered to?
	Finally, there is the question of energy. As we go towards the energy review and the possibility that nuclear power will be part of the recipe for providing energy for the United Kingdom, I believe that the question of whether nuclear plants are allowed in Wales should be within the Assembly's planning powers. For those reasons, I support the amendments.

Adam Price: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in clause 108, page 59, line 18, after 'Parliament', insert 'or
	(aa) has been laid before each House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, but has been rejected by the House of Lords,'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 160, in clause 108, page 59, line 21, at end insert
	'(4A) If subsection (4)(aa) applies, the Order in Council shall not take effect until one year has elapsed since the date on which the House of Commons came to the resolution.'.

Cheryl Gillan: This clause is about the Welsh Seal and the Letters Patent and I did not want it to pass by completely unnoticed. When I saw that it was in the Bill, I was absolutely fascinated and wanted to do a little research so that I could ask the Minister a couple of questions.
	The Great Seal of the Realm, the chief seal of the Crown, is used to show the monarch's approval of important state documents. In today's constitutional monarchy, the sovereign still acts on the advice of the Government of the day, but the seal remains an important symbol of the sovereign's role as Head of State and goes back, I believe, to the 11th century.
	The seal meant that the monarch did not have to sign every official document in person and authorisation could be carried out instead by an appointed officer. I can find reference to the separate seals that exist for Scotlandthe Great Seal of Scotlandand for Northern Ireland, but I found little if any reference to a Welsh seal. My first question for the Minister therefore is whether this is first Welsh seal ever. If so, is it not right and proper to mark its arrival in the Bill and eventually in statute by holding a short debate?
	Her Royal Highness Her Majesty the Queen has had to have two seals in the time that she has been on the throne. The Great Seal of the Realmthe monarch's stamp of approvalhas worn out because it has been used approximately 5,000 times since 1953. In 2001, Her Majesty had to have a new seal commissioned.
	If this is the first Welsh seal, it is an historic moment. However, my second question is about how it will be used. The Great Seal matrix is obviously used to cover a wide range of documents requiring royal approval, including Letters Patent and royal proclamations, commissions and some writs. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Welsh seal will be used in relation to the writs for the election of Members to this place? The seal is also used for documents that give power to sign and ratify treaties. At the moment, about 100 documents a year pass under the Great Seal. Will the Minister tell us how it is envisaged that the Welsh seal will be used and the documents for which it will be used?
	Interestingly enough, when the sealing occurs in the other place in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, the seals are colour coded. Dark green seals are affixed to letters patent that elevate individuals to the peerage. Blue seals are used for documents relating to close members of the royal family and the scarlet-red seal is used for the appointment of bishops and most other patents. As part of a run around the field of the history of our great countries and in viewhopefullyof a big mark in the history of Wales, will the Minister tell us how he envisages the Welsh seal and how it will be used?

Elfyn Llwyd: Under the status quo, the North Wales is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman describes. At the first Assembly election, Simon Thomas, who represented Ceredigion in the House, served as a list Member for an area extending from Eglwysbach in the Conwy valley in the north of my constituency, five minutes from Llandudno, all the way down to Fishguard. Things were far worse then they would be under our proposal.

Lembit �pik: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's disagreement with amendment No. 70. We simply have a difference of view, and, in the light of that, we can hardly negotiate towards an agreement. I was not really persuaded by the Secretary of State's argument on this issue, and we might have to return to it on another occasion.
	On amendment No. 69, I really do not see why the Secretary of State, who is admittedly pro-devolution, is nevertheless intent on preserving this privilege to an individual who will almost certainly not sit in the Assembly. I do not see why the Secretary of State thinks that someone who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to serve in a Government in Westminster is best equipped to determine the date of an ordinary election in Wales.
	I am disappointed that the Government, and specifically the Secretary of State, take a rather intransigent view on this matter. Every fibre in my body tells me to divide the House on it. However, given the excitement that we have had in the past half hour, and the fact that I shall have the opportunity to return to the matter on Reportif I feel provoked to do soin a couple of weeks, and given that the Secretary of State has made his point and I have made mine and we have agreed to differ for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 7, page 4, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert
	'(5) The list must not include a person
	(a) who is included on any other list submitted for the Assembly electoral region or any list submitted for another Assembly electoral region,
	(b) who is an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
	(c) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
	(d) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region but is not a candidate of the party.
	(6) A person may not be an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region if he is
	(a) included on a list submitted by a registered political party for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,
	(b) an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for another Assembly electoral region,
	(c) a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or
	(d) a candidate of any registered political party to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 7, page 4, line 34, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 10, in clause 7, page 4, line 36, leave out from second 'region' to end of line 38.
	No. 130, in clause 7, page 4, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 94, in clause 7, page 4, line 42, at end insert 'or'.
	No. 95, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, leave out 'or'.
	No. 52, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, leave out paragraph (c).
	No. 127, in clause 11, page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 49, in schedule 11, page 161, line 22, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5.
	No. 128, in schedule 11, page 162, line 1, leave out paragraph 5.

Cheryl Gillan: I am willing to give way, but before I do so I must point out that that goes to show that voters are confused because, since 1997, the Government have introduced so many different electoral systems that it has hard to keep pace.

Cheryl Gillan: If my hon. Friend is saying that the electorate are learning how to play the system, I think that he is absolutely right. I am sure that that is to our advantage in Clwyd, West.
	The Electoral Commission, in preparing its response, contacted all political parties registered to contest elections in Wales. Of those who responded, the majority strongly opposed the change. A perception exists that the change favours incumbency and the current party of Assembly government that holds the large majority of constituency seatsthe Labour party. The conclusion that the Electoral Commission drew on the provision says it all. On the evidence available, it said, it did not believe that a case for a change had been made out. The Secretary of State should think hard before going against the opinions of one of our leading independent bodies.
	Opposition to the ban has also been expressed forcefully by the Electoral Reform Society, which concluded:
	We urge the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made.
	Yet another independent organisation is therefore criticising the proposals.

Elfyn Llwyd: Risible arguments are precisely what we heard earlier. What nonsense has been put around. I have great regard for the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) but when he was pressed about the evidence, even he could only say that he had had the odd conversation here and there. Nobody has produced a shred of evidence to prove the case.
	Let us look at the international situation. Dr. Wyn Jones and Dr. Scully said:
	The proposed change is internationally anomalous.
	Their report goes on:
	After extensive consultations with the expert academic community, we have only been able to discover one place where the change proposed in Wales has been implemented. This was in Ukraine, prior to the 2002 parliamentary elections . . . The only other instance we have been able to find where this has even been seriously proposed is very recently for New Brunswick in Canada. Therefore, the suggested change does, frankly, make Wales look odd.
	I would certainly say that that is true.
	The Electoral Commission was cited earlier by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), and it has looked dispassionately and independently at the situation. What it had to say about international comparisons is interesting:
	There are around 30 countries that have mixed or additional member electoral systems.
	But no other country bans dual candidacy on the lines of the proposal in the White Paper. We feel that going down that road requires more compelling reasons without those other examples. If we are to operate outside international democratic norms, we have to have particular reasons for doing so.
	The Secretary of State's response, of course, was to rubbish that and pretend that academics highly respected in Welsh and international politics had somehow got it wrong. If he says later that the matter has been considered in New Zealand and Canada, he will be right, but it has been turned down in both, which hardly helps his argument.
	The Secretary of State also offered a gratuitous insult to the Electoral Commission in saying that it played a valuable role but could get things wrong and had got this wrong. If we are all, collectively, getting it wrong, why does not the Secretary of State give us some proof instead of conjecture and stories about thousands of people who are beside themselves all night because of the unfairness of the system?

Cheryl Gillan: Methinks the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much, Sir Michael, but it will be interesting to find out exactly who paid for the research, as I am sure that we will eventually.
	I do not wish to detain the House for too long because we have had a long debate on the amendment. To be quite frank, I would be ashamed to be bringing forward such a proposal if I were Secretary of State for Wales. It has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is a party political move by the Labour party on behalf of Labour politicians, who have certainly had it all their own way, but now cannot face the competition. It is clear that there has been no demand for such a measure because otherwise evidence would have been put before the Committee, or at least placed in the Library. No other party in the House or the Assembly has demanded a change to the electoral arrangements. Most leading commentatorscertainly the Electoral Commissionand many academics have spoken out clearly against the measure.
	There is no doubt that the Secretary of State is putting forward a grubby little measure. He has not even had the decency to discuss it with the Presiding Officer of the Assembly. I wanted to discover how well and even-handedly the Secretary of State had consulted people in the Welsh Assembly, so I read the evidence that the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 31 October 2005. When he was asked whether the White Paper represented the Assembly's view, he said:
	We did not, for example, discuss questions surrounding changes in election rules, or preventing Members from standing for election.
	The Secretary of State did not even bother to discuss the matter with the Presiding Officer and I understand from the evidence given by the Presiding Officer that he did not discuss it with the Assembly parliamentary service, either. The Presiding Officer said:
	As I understand it, there has been very little consultation with officials working with us, and with colleagues who are committee clerks and part of the parliamentary service . . . It is also a cause for concern for me that the bill has not come to us as a draft bill.

Amendments made: No. 220, in page 103, line 14, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 221, in page 103, line 19, at end insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 222, in page 103, line 23, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 223, in page 103, line 39, at end insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 224, in page 103, line 43, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 225, in page 104, line 14, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 226, in page 104, line 26, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 227, in page 104, line 34, after 'Ministers' insert
	', the First Minister or the Counsel General'.
	No. 228, in page 104, line 35, at end insert. 
	Laying of reports and statements
	9A (1) This paragraph applies where
	(a) a function to make or receive a report or statement (including a function conferred or imposed by or by virtue of an Act passed after this Act) is transferred to, or made exercisable by, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General by an Order in Council under section 58, and
	(b) immediately before the coming into force of the provisions of the Order in Council relating to the function, and enactment made provision (provision for Parliamentary laying) for a report or statement made or received in the exercise of the function to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament by the person making or receiving it.
	(2) The provision for Parliamentary laying applies to the exercise of the function by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General as if it required the report or statement to be laid before the Assembly instead of before Parliament or either House of Parliament.
	(3) In this paragraph references to a report or statement include any other document (except one containing subordinate legislation).
	No. 229, in page 105, leave out lines 30 to 35. [Nick Ainger.]
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clauses 59 to 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ben Wallace: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
	I would like the Minister to communicate those changes because the axe fell significantly heavily on the Department for Work and Pensions, where the target is a 30,000 reduction in personnel. After the last two years, the Government have made headline figuresreducing Jobcentre Plus and reducing the Pension Servicebut little detail has been communicated either to us in the House or to the work force. I hope there is some element of correction tonight.
	It is important that the Minister takes on board the low morale of the work force and the fact that they do not really know what is happening. It was sad that the Public and Commercial Services Union had to resort to a 48-hour strike last week. That came not out of greed or a desire for better pay and conditions, but out a desire for some pay and conditions and for better communication to them. I have to say that I supported members of the union at the Norcross site in that action, if only because it was a cry for help. I hope that they get some answers and are able to sleep better in their beds.
	The problem with the Gershon review, and indeed the changes, is that the drive for savings and reconfiguration has outpaced the plan for efficiency. Therefore, the cart has been put before the horse. Each agency, according to different timetables and different directorates, is putting in place its view. At the same time, the employees are trying to keep pace with the changes.
	I have only to point to the evidence given to the Work and Pensions Committee by Ms Strathie, the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus. She explained that the call centre debacle in the summerabout 90 per cent. of customers could not get an answerwas due to the muddle between trained and temporary staff, staff off sick and redeployed staff, which affected the delivery of the service. We need to communicate the fact that if such changes are not properly made, planned in advance and communicated, there will be a hotch-potch of trained and experienced staff, as well as a pot-luck effect, that inevitably have a knock-on effect on the service received by my constituents and the whole UK. Therefore, it is vital that that be done.